"Calvin was a true fundamentalist, and he was the kind that I would like to be."

Doug and I are already divided here in Idaho.

Our church will not accept Roman Catholic baptisms.

Since when have RCC “baptisms” been valid NT baptisms? They lack proper mode, meaning, and administrator (at least according to Dr. Richard Weeks)..

Interestingly, Doug Wilson, one of the leaders of the very doctrinally controversial Federal Vision, will be one of the speakers at…Piper’s fall conference. Wilson does in his article, just what he and the other leaders accomplish with Federal Vision, a lot is said with nothing substantial produced. Why do I say this?

Take a gander at Federal Vision some time, read their joint statement:

http://www.federal-vision.com/joint_statement.html

Here is a dandy qualifier you will find at Federal Vision:

We have no desire to present a “moving target,” but we do want to be teachable, willing to stand corrected, or to refine our formulations as critics point out ambiguities, confusions, or errors.

Errors? Ambiguities? Confusions? And this is suppose to be a healthy movement or healthy association of Ministers?

Now, how is this relevant to the blog article? Well as I pointed out, it is, to me, consistent with Wilson on such matters and it is evident to me that it lies, not as an article in and of itself, but an ongoing argument and development of his and those of Federal Vision who wish to diminish the distinction of classic Reformed Theology and change it into something far less distinctive, particularly when facing Rome.

Notice his allusion here:

In his discussion of church unity, Calvin argues for the two marks of the Church being a preaching of the pure Word and a faithful administration of the sacraments.

The he quotes Calvin in book 4 of ICR:

“For not all articles of true doctrine are of the same sort. Some are so necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men as the proper principles of religion. Such are: God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation rests in God’s mercy; and the like” (Institutes 4.1.12).

Then Wilson goes on to make the following complaints/observations:

Unless distinctions are made between greater and lesser matters of the law, or doctrines which are of first importance and others which or not, it follows that schism is either impossible or permissible at any time…We need to have high views of church unity as Calvin did, but with a view of Scripture which would applaud the Reformation. This cannot work unless we rank the teachings and commands of Scripture appropriately.

(Rhetorical device engaged) Well Doug, distinctions have been made and in fact among Reformed/Presbyterian churches there seems to be a rather well developed confession. Who is it you are you complaining hasn’t made hierarchical distinctions among your theological brethren? Or is it they are not fond of your views and expressions in many sermons and various writings and your associations concerning the doctrine of justification? Hmmmm? He continues:

And we need to have a high view of that which of first importance without elevating everything to that honor, thus resulting in church splits over anything.

In this instance you are right, Doug, but you state the obvious and this adds little insight to your initial proposition that Calvin was the kind of fundamentalist you would like to be. Yes Doug, you do not define what these essentials are and what are not. Maybe this is why membership and leadership with Federal Vision, which admits its own “ambiguities, confusions, or errors” is a comfortable place. Maybe your article was not meant for including such definitions, fine, we look forward to you following your own advice and issuing some kind of parameters, even the most basic as to what can or cannot be considered. (Rhetorical device disengaged) Maybe it is that Wilson’s theological development (his blog is not strong on theological articles) simply is lacking much of what it needs to enable him to answer his own question, one many men clearly have answered since the beginning of the church.

Alex,

I’m sort of dumbfounded by this:

[Alex] Maybe it is that Wilson’s theological development (his blog is not strong on theological articles) simply is lacking much of what it needs to enable him to answer his own question, one many men clearly have answered since the beginning of the church.

Have you read books by Wilson or his Crendenda Agenda magazine? He certainly has theological development under his belt and then some.

Your post doesn’t point out Wilson’s “own question”. At least I skimmed it twice and couldn’t figure it out. But I’m guessing you’re referring to what exactly are essentials. If so, to say “many men clearly have answered [this] since the beginning of the church” is ludicrous. This is Phil Johnson’s constant complaint that in all the historical research and reading he’s done on the fundamentalist movement, evangelical movement, and earlier, there is hardly any works on this topic at all. As for the “fundamentals of the faith” there is difference of opinion on what they are, and even for most if not all of those Wilson would qualify. Even so, those fundamentals aren’t really defended in the sense of what makes them essential and others not. That is the question. How do we know what is first-level and what is second-level, on the basis of Scripture. Much remains to be done in this area, I think.

Wilson is addressing an important issue, and he brings Calvin to bear which illustrates the historicity of the idea that there are fundamental doctrines (some would dispute the idea that anything is more important than anything else in the sense of you either agree to all of Scripture’s doctrines, and fellowship with us, or you don’t and you we’ll separate from you and suspect you’re an unbeliever).

Thank you for finding the link to the Federal Vision statement. The last time I tried to find it, it had disappeared. Wilson is a constant topic in the PCA (my denomination), and it is a bit humorous for someone who is quite on the edge of Protestant orthodoxy to be talking about what kind of Fundamentalist he is. I think I know a few dozen PCA pastors who have decided John Piper is apostate just for inviting him to speak. Then again, these are the same pastors who said that when he invited Mark Driscoll. :)